Australian Internet Filtering Position

[Dustin2128]

Conroy shelves net filter as election looms.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225889985524

This is good, but I hope the goal of this isn't to have people forget about it so they can sign it behind their backs.

[t0p]

I've been living with censored internet access for a few weeks now (I'm using a Vodafone UK "mobile broadband" dongle, and Voda won't remove the content control filter because I don't have a credit card or photo ID) and it stinks! Sure, there are plenty of ways of getting round a block; but those who maintain the censorship are often only a step or two behind us.

I can see no justification for restriction of access based on content. Of course child pornography is foul and evil and those who make, distribute and use it should be punished. But child abuse is not a technological problem, so it's a waste of time trying to find a technological solution for it. And it's just the thin edge of the wedge: if we accept filtering for this purpose, it won't be too difficult further down the line to accept filtering for other reasons. This kind of thing needs stamping on now before it's got out of the box and scurried out under the door. People who burn books would torch entire libraries if we let them. So man those hoses, dammit!!

EDIT: I came across this some while ago, and I thought this is an apposite time to share it with you. The stuff "they" think needs censoring is always considered oh-so-horrid at the time; but a few years later we say "So what's so terrible of that then?"

[PhilGil]

Those of you who think this can't happen in the US are very wrong. Numerous attempts have already been made to control our online activities and access to content, with only the federal courts holding the line on first amendment grounds. If the corporations that own our legislature and judiciary decide it's in their interest to enact these laws, restrictions will be in place faster than you can say "Citizens United decision."

For my Australian friends, I'm glad to hear the government is reconsidering. It is never, ever, ever a good idea to give government control over the free exchange of information, no matter how repulsive that information may be.

[seenthelite]

Policy of current Federal Government
On 31 December 2007, Stephen Conroy announced the Federal Government's intention to introduce an ISP-based filter to censor "inappropriate material" from the Internet to protect children. In this announcement, it was stated that adults could opt out of the filter to receive an uncensored internet.[34]
In May 2008, the government commenced an $82 million “cybersafety plan” which included an additional mandatory filter with no opt-out provision. This ISP-based filter aims to stop adults from downloading content that is illegal to possess in Australia, such as child pornography or materials related to terrorism.[35]
In March 2009, Stephen Conroy dismissed suggestions that the Government would use the filter to crack down on political dissent as "conspiracy theories". He stated that the filter would only be used to remove "refused classification" (RC) content, using the same rationale as existing television, radio and print publications, and that the Senate could be relied upon to provide rigorous assessment of any proposed legislation.[36] However, Labor's policy statement on the issue [37][dead link] contradicts this. It is also contrary to an earlier ministerial release in 2008.[38]
The most recent explanation of the government's position on this issue is provided on the ministry website.[39] This clearly states that only ISP-level filtering of (designated) refused classification (RC) material will be mandatory under their policy. However, ISP's will be encouraged to offer ISP-level filtering of 'adult content' as an optional (commercial) service to their customers. Such an optional extra service is aimed at parents trying to protect their children from 'undesirable' content that would otherwise be available, because it would not be RC (e.g. it might receive a classification of "R").
Labor Senator Kate Lundy said in January 2010 that she is lobbying within the party for an "opt-out" filter, describing it as the "least worst" option.[40] In February 2010 she said she would propose the opt-out option when the filtering legislation goes before caucus.[41]
Stephen Conroy has stated that 85% of Internet Service Providers, including Telstra, Optus, iPrimus and iiNet, welcome the Internet filter.[42] In response, Steve Dalby, iiNet's chief regulatory officer, stated that iiNet as a company does not support the Internet filter, and never has.[43]
On 9 July 2010, Stephen Conroy announced that any mandatory filtering would be delayed until at least 2011.[44]

[seenthelite]

Those of you who think this can't happen in the US are very wrong. Numerous attempts have already been made to control our online activities and access to content, with only the federal courts holding the line on first amendment grounds. If the corporations that own our legislature and judiciary decide it's in their interest to enact these laws, restrictions will be in place faster than you can say "Citizens United decision."

For my Australian friends, I'm glad to hear the government is reconsidering. It is never, ever, ever a good idea to give government control over the free exchange of information, no matter how repulsive that information may be.

According to information freely available on the internet, Some Internet censorship (filtering) is already in place in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship

Of course it may not be accurate.